🚀 go-pugleaf

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:46:24 -0700, "goPostal"
<agutgopostal@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Alright, who is bone tired of the stock maps already?  :) 

Which game?  

"Folk" <Folk@folk.com> wrote in message 
news:l6jhi3ljv93l2bvdu7v5skcmg24agjfomr@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:46:24 -0700, "goPostal"
> <agutgopostal@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Alright, who is bone tired of the stock maps already?  :)
>
> Which game?

U3 of course. It's been quiet here surprisingly. 

goPostal wrote:
> Alright, who is bone tired of the stock maps already?  :) 
> 
> 
I've not played it enough to get tired of them, I really haven't found 
it to be much fun. Looks good, weapon effects are top-notch. It just 
doesn't seem like much fun, especially without mutators and such. I am 
anxious to see the new gametype that will replace assault and ONS, , but 
It's going to REALLY have to kick ass to be a viable replacement for the 
both of them.

Also, is anyone else having issues with the game losing keyboard bindings?

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:43:57 -0400, Folk <Folk@folk.com> wrote:

>Which game?  

Deck16, probably?

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:29:50 -0700, "goPostal"
<agutgopostal@hotmail.com> wrote:

>U3 of course. It's been quiet here surprisingly. 

Remove all gameplay, what do you expect?

On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 13:18:17 +0000, Mr K wrote:

>>Which game?  
>
>Deck16, probably?

It is impossible to get bored of Deck16!
-- 
Andrew, contact via http://interpleb.googlepages.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:29:50 -0700, "goPostal"
<agutgopostal@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"Folk" <Folk@folk.com> wrote in message 
>news:l6jhi3ljv93l2bvdu7v5skcmg24agjfomr@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:46:24 -0700, "goPostal"
>> <agutgopostal@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Alright, who is bone tired of the stock maps already?  :)
>>
>> Which game?
>
>U3 of course. It's been quiet here surprisingly. 

You don't have long to wait.  Should be in stores 11/19.

The quiet may be due to the demo sucking in so many areas.  And
judging from the time between release of buggy demo and showing up in
stores (see above) most folks aren't holding out much hope that all
issues will be addressed.  I'll buy it, but quite frankly I'm not
holding out much hope that the gametype I'm waiting for (Warfare) will
actually be worth the wait.

Am Thu, 01 Nov 2007 15:43:45 +0000 schrieb Andrew:

> On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 13:18:17 +0000, Mr K wrote:
> 
>>>Which game?  
>>
>>Deck16, probably?
> 
> It is impossible to get bored of Deck16!

Lol, this map still rulez even in GOTY and Deck 17!

greeetz

Am Wed, 31 Oct 2007 20:29:53 -0800 schrieb GTD:

> goPostal wrote:
>> Alright, who is bone tired of the stock maps already?  :) 
>> 
>> 
> I've not played it enough to get tired of them, I really haven't found 
> it to be much fun. Looks good, weapon effects are top-notch. It just 
> doesn't seem like much fun, especially without mutators and such. I am 
> anxious to see the new gametype that will replace assault and ONS, , but 
> It's going to REALLY have to kick ass to be a viable replacement for the 
> both of them.
> 
> Also, is anyone else having issues with the game losing keyboard bindings?

Hm, Keybindings? Im a strange one rocking with mouse and Joystick.
Especially in 2k4 on all those racetracks in assault, its a fortune.


Meister

"Michael Weber" <mwebernospam@arcor.de> wrote in message 
news:1pnrrz46mk9hr$.1nd7lmikdoct4$.dlg@40tude.net...
> Am Wed, 31 Oct 2007 20:29:53 -0800 schrieb GTD:
>
>> goPostal wrote:
>>> Alright, who is bone tired of the stock maps already?  :)
>>>
>>>
>> I've not played it enough to get tired of them, I really haven't found
>> it to be much fun. Looks good, weapon effects are top-notch. It just
>> doesn't seem like much fun, especially without mutators and such. I am
>> anxious to see the new gametype that will replace assault and ONS, , but
>> It's going to REALLY have to kick ass to be a viable replacement for the
>> both of them.
>>
>> Also, is anyone else having issues with the game losing keyboard 
>> bindings?
>
> Hm, Keybindings? Im a strange one rocking with mouse and Joystick.
> Especially in 2k4 on all those racetracks in assault, its a fortune.
>
>
> Meister

I play the racetracks some too, but the controls are really tight. I've 
never been able to do well. 

Am Sat, 3 Nov 2007 06:28:40 -0700 schrieb goPostal:

> "Michael Weber" <mwebernospam@arcor.de> wrote in message 
> news:1pnrrz46mk9hr$.1nd7lmikdoct4$.dlg@40tude.net...
>> Am Wed, 31 Oct 2007 20:29:53 -0800 schrieb GTD:
>>
>>> goPostal wrote:
>>>> Alright, who is bone tired of the stock maps already?  :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I've not played it enough to get tired of them, I really haven't found
>>> it to be much fun. Looks good, weapon effects are top-notch. It just
>>> doesn't seem like much fun, especially without mutators and such. I am
>>> anxious to see the new gametype that will replace assault and ONS, , but
>>> It's going to REALLY have to kick ass to be a viable replacement for the
>>> both of them.
>>>
>>> Also, is anyone else having issues with the game losing keyboard 
>>> bindings?
>>
>> Hm, Keybindings? Im a strange one rocking with mouse and Joystick.
>> Especially in 2k4 on all those racetracks in assault, its a fortune.
>>
>>
>> Meister
> 
> I play the racetracks some too, but the controls are really tight. I've 
> never been able to do well.

huh, funny.
I played beside gamers, who played with mouse n keys, but in racetracs they
mostely loosed by falling off the tracks. Mine was easy to keep on goin (of
course to be shot of it) the track.

I often made it..

Greetz

On a pleasant day while strolling in 
alt.games.unreal.tournament, a person by the name of 
Folk exclaimed:
> The quiet may be due to the demo sucking in so many areas.  And
> judging from the time between release of buggy demo and showing up in
> stores (see above) most folks aren't holding out much hope that all
> issues will be addressed.
Yes, that seems likely, unless they already fixed them 
all before and just released an earlier build...

> I'll buy it, but quite frankly I'm not
> holding out much hope that the gametype I'm waiting for (Warfare) will
> actually be worth the wait.

Really? Why? I have a bad feeling about it too (ONS 
seems so slick that it would be hard to improve on it, 
as a concept balancing team and invidual play) but I 
cant say why...

-- 
aaronl at consultant dot com 
For every expert, there is an equal and 
opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 00:54:26 +1200, Aaron Lawrence
<aaronlNOSPAM@NOSPAMconsultant.com> wrote:

>On a pleasant day while strolling in 
>alt.games.unreal.tournament, a person by the name of 
>Folk exclaimed:
>> The quiet may be due to the demo sucking in so many areas.  And
>> judging from the time between release of buggy demo and showing up in
>> stores (see above) most folks aren't holding out much hope that all
>> issues will be addressed.
>Yes, that seems likely, unless they already fixed them 
>all before and just released an earlier build...
>
>> I'll buy it, but quite frankly I'm not
>> holding out much hope that the gametype I'm waiting for (Warfare) will
>> actually be worth the wait.
>
>Really? Why? I have a bad feeling about it too (ONS 
>seems so slick that it would be hard to improve on it, 
>as a concept balancing team and invidual play) but I 
>cant say why...

If Warfare had been a finished product, then it would have shipped
with the demo.  ONS was the previous flagship gametype for UT2004 and
now that has morphed into Warfare.  The only reason you would *not*
ship your flagship gametype in the demo is if it was broken. 

If you go back a couple of years, Epic's explanation of what Warfare
was supposed to be is really nothing like the version that people
played at the various expos held recently.  So, instead of having a
grand plan of exactly what they wanted the gametype to be, they've
tried "A" and rejected it, tried "B" and rejected it, etc., etc.  As a
systems designer, I know full well that a system that is gradually
morphed into being after trying a bunch of different ideas is nowhere
near as sound as one that was well designed, well thought out and then
simply coded to spec.  So from that aspect, it sounds like Warfare is
a patch job.

In addition to that, the time between the release of the demo and the
release of the game to manufacturing was laughably short.  The demo
was absolutely riddled with bugs and major shortcomings... undoubtedly
the worst demo that Epic has ever released and I played them all.  The
UI sucked and the server browser was a joke.  Basic options like throw
weapon, suicide, ability to finely adjust mouse sensitivity, showing
the ping of other players, etc. etc. were all missing.  These are
things that mean nothing to console gamers but are important to online
PC gamers.

And you have to factor in the reality of what GoW did to/for Epic.
>>From here forward, Epic's best talent and resources have switched
irreversibly to the console side and I can't say that I really blame
them, but one look at the GUI and missing features in the demo and
it's obvious that this is essentially a console game ported to the PC.
Given all of the above, how in the hell could Epic have possibly
released a polished product?  Answer... they couldn't.  Sure, they can
patch it up over time, but if the game doesn't win people over from
the get-go then it's a lost cause, given the stiff competition that's
out there right now.  People will just move on to CoD4 or TF2 and pass
on UT3 altogether.  The console crowd will eat it up (given their low
expectations) and the PC side will either be forgotten or just get the
scraps provided by the less talented developers, just like we're
seeing now.

IOW, my expectations are justifiably low.

Hi Folk, I always like to read your posts. Helpful and 
interesting! Inline:

On a pleasant day while strolling in 
alt.games.unreal.tournament, a person by the name of 
Folk exclaimed:
> If Warfare had been a finished product, then it would have shipped
> with the demo.  ONS was the previous flagship gametype for UT2004 and
> now that has morphed into Warfare.  The only reason you would *not*
> ship your flagship gametype in the demo is if it was broken. 

Agreed.

> If you go back a couple of years, Epic's explanation of what Warfare
> was supposed to be is really nothing like the version that people
> played at the various expos held recently.

Yeah, I remember the grandiose ideas.

> Given all of the above, how in the hell could Epic have possibly
> released a polished product?  Answer... they couldn't.  

>>From this thread:
http://forums.epicgames.com/showthread.php?t=583809

it doesn't sound like they fixed much for the full 
release. Weapon, vehicle, bot issues all still present. 
Just little tweaks here and there, as you would expect 
given the timeframe.

Sounds like a waste of time - stick with UT2k4 unless 
you want the pretty graphics?

-- 
aaronl at consultant dot com 
For every expert, there is an equal and 
opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 23:48:24 +1200, Aaron Lawrence
<aaronlNOSPAM@NOSPAMconsultant.com> wrote:

>Hi Folk, I always like to read your posts. Helpful and 
>interesting! Inline:

Thanks!

>>From this thread:
>http://forums.epicgames.com/showthread.php?t=583809
>
>it doesn't sound like they fixed much for the full 
>release. Weapon, vehicle, bot issues all still present. 
>Just little tweaks here and there, as you would expect 
>given the timeframe.
>
>Sounds like a waste of time - stick with UT2k4 unless 
>you want the pretty graphics?

I'll certainly buy it, and I'm reserving judgment until I've played
it.  I've seen some good vids of Warfare gameplay
http://planetunreal.gamespy.com/View.php?view=Articles.Detail&id=111
and it looks like it could be fun even with all the problems.  We'll
see.

On another note, I bought GoW for PC last week.  Despite problems (I
lost saved games twice and finally found a method that will hopefully
fix it if it happens again) I find the single player campaign to be
compelling and fun so far.  The multiplayer appears to be nerfed,
since they're using the same idiotic concept of players hosting games
instead of true dedicated servers, but I haven't played multiplayer
yet so I can't say for sure.  

"Folk" <Folk@folk.com> wrote in message 
news:eh9vj3d8vdve0dfpefk7qobveefog56eh8@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 23:48:24 +1200, Aaron Lawrence
> <aaronlNOSPAM@NOSPAMconsultant.com> wrote:
>
>>Hi Folk, I always like to read your posts. Helpful and
>>interesting! Inline:
>
> Thanks!
>
>>>From this thread:
>>http://forums.epicgames.com/showthread.php?t=583809
>>
>>it doesn't sound like they fixed much for the full
>>release. Weapon, vehicle, bot issues all still present.
>>Just little tweaks here and there, as you would expect
>>given the timeframe.
>>
>>Sounds like a waste of time - stick with UT2k4 unless
>>you want the pretty graphics?
>
> I'll certainly buy it, and I'm reserving judgment until I've played
> it.  I've seen some good vids of Warfare gameplay
> http://planetunreal.gamespy.com/View.php?view=Articles.Detail&id=111
> and it looks like it could be fun even with all the problems.  We'll
> see.
>
> On another note, I bought GoW for PC last week.  Despite problems (I
> lost saved games twice and finally found a method that will hopefully
> fix it if it happens again) I find the single player campaign to be
> compelling and fun so far.  The multiplayer appears to be nerfed,
> since they're using the same idiotic concept of players hosting games
> instead of true dedicated servers, but I haven't played multiplayer
> yet so I can't say for sure.

I also got GoW but I cannot abide by the online save. I uninstalled until 
they patch it to save locally. I keep my firewall very tight and only open 
it when I need to go outbound for some reason. (There's a whiz kid in the 
'hood who has hacked my wireless already once) I wish there had been a more 
prominent warning of this before I dropped money on it. You can't even play 
the single-player mode without losing your progress if you shut down. 
Classic microsoft. 

In article <eh9vj3d8vdve0dfpefk7qobveefog56eh8@4ax.com>, Folk <Folk@folk.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 23:48:24 +1200, Aaron Lawrence
><aaronlNOSPAM@NOSPAMconsultant.com> wrote:
>
>>Hi Folk, I always like to read your posts. Helpful and 
>>interesting! Inline:
>
>Thanks!
>
>>>From this thread:
>>http://forums.epicgames.com/showthread.php?t=583809
>>
>>it doesn't sound like they fixed much for the full 
>>release. Weapon, vehicle, bot issues all still present. 
>>Just little tweaks here and there, as you would expect 
>>given the timeframe.
>>
>>Sounds like a waste of time - stick with UT2k4 unless 
>>you want the pretty graphics?
>
>I'll certainly buy it, and I'm reserving judgment until I've played
>it.  I've seen some good vids of Warfare gameplay
>http://planetunreal.gamespy.com/View.php?view=Articles.Detail&id=111
>and it looks like it could be fun even with all the problems.  We'll
>see.
>
>On another note, I bought GoW for PC last week.  Despite problems (I
>lost saved games twice and finally found a method that will hopefully
>fix it if it happens again) I find the single player campaign to be
>compelling and fun so far.  The multiplayer appears to be nerfed,
>since they're using the same idiotic concept of players hosting games
>instead of true dedicated servers, but I haven't played multiplayer
>yet so I can't say for sure.  


I prefer player hosted servers , that way when the gay company decides to shut 
down support for the game 2 years from now, youll still be playing the game 
with others.  Look at the original Unreal Tournament, still going strong.